North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

reply to post by nenothtu

hey there nenothtu, hope this helps a little.
start with the "bold" words in the quote you linked. "only valid legal union"
(or something like that)
you, feeble-minded ?? not on your worst day

but since you asked nice, unmarried couples (both hetero & homo) share everything from finances to family, property to children and success to abuse.
unmarried hetero couples specifically, will have difficulty obtaining everything from loans to protection orders, emergent care to visitations, custody to co-habitation.
surely this is not surprising to you ?

couples who share a life, family and/or a business but no marriage will suffer unnecessarily.
i didn't check if NC acknowledged "common law" marriages previously (my state does) but the amendment wording prevents any future acknowledgement or "rights" previously associated with said union.

in the sense of human equality, married, hetero couples will become stigmatized and social outcasts by the mere presumption that they are some how, privileged.
persons of a perceived privilege but less wealth usually suffer the violent wrath of the under-privileged.
in the sense of economics, this is just plain silly.

It's like, you know, about MARRIAGE, so how is it supposed to affect those who already forego marriage? Seriously, I want to understand.

i don't follow your train of thought here ^^^ , you're not one to skip reading the legislation, did you this time?
this amendment emphatically eliminates all other forms of civil unions as valid and nullifies any previously applicable laws.

don't know about you, but i know many hetero couples who have invested in a future without the formal "marriage", why should they be deprived any rights ?

yes, this is about marriage AND any other civil union (read it, it says so)

don't get me wrong, i'd prefer the whole concept of marriage was kept in the church and everyone (even those "married" via the church) obtain a "civil union" legally.
it'd certainly be tougher to subvert the active govt systems; health, welfare, tax, court and any other govt support system in use today.

ok, after re-reading your post, i get that you think this only effects the gay population ???
am i reading you right?

as for before the vote - i didn't participate or know about it or you'd have heard my opinion on it.

i know you know the Constitution so re-read the 1st, 10th, 14th and the 9th for that matter.
paraphrasing here - 1st - equal privilege to all - civil marriage (not Holy Matrimony) would be included
10th - powers not delegated belong to the people - (to each their own)
14th - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
9th - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

for decades, co-habitants have been recognized, legally protected, legally admitted (lawsuits, visitations), settled property disputes, endured domestic disturbances and all the legal ramifications attached, raised families, buried families and done many other "accepted behaviors" without the label of being married.
Not any more.

any questions, feel free to ask but i hope this helps both of you understand just how bad this is gonna get unless it's held up by challenge.

emergent care example -- your "mate" but not spouse is admitted to the hospital and needs an emergency appendectomy (life in jeopardy) -- previously, as a "mate" (household resident), you could give permission to proceed. Not as of this law.
Spouse or family or directive (medical POA [power of attorney]) only can make the decision and your "mate" could die while the proper contact is made.
any number of emergency situations could imperil the lives of those who need care the most simply due to this "stipulation" (i dare not call it a law - it just doesn't qualify)

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Sure he does, and goblins tell me it's ok, ok. Get over it.

Originally posted by Radiobuzz

North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

www.nytimes.com

As expected, North Carolinians voted in large numbers on Tuesday for an amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, partnerships and civil unions, becoming the 30th state in the country and the last in the South to include a prohibition on gay marriage in the state constitution.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
usnews.msnbc.msn. com

About 40% of the American population are morons, add to that a fundamentalist Christian conservative insanity, which is then politicized, and what do you get?

I am so sick of religious people enforcing thier age old practices on us. How is a same sex marriage wrong? The only reason for this is because its a "sin" and alot of southerners are religious folks who follow the bible. I hate it. The government needs to get out of peoples beds and start focusing on real issues like homelessness and people losing jobs.

Originally posted by omegafire
Finnaly, some common sense coming from Washington. Marriage is between "natural" Man and Women, not the other way around "unnatural in nature/science and religion". Gay marriage should be banned accross the planet ASAP! Might as well let people marry animals if this were to pass. Where would it end?

edit on 9-5-2012 by omegafire because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2012 by omegafire because: add

Finally, some common sense coming from Washington.

This isn't a Washington Issue, it's a state issue.

Marriage is between "natural" Men and Women, not the other way around, "unnatural in nature/science and religion."

What is an Unnatural Man/Woman? Are they created in a lab? According to history since the dawn of man, homosexuals have existed as a legitimate people, born the way they are.

Gay marriage should be banned across the planet ASAP!

Abrahamic Religion should be banned across the planet ASAP! Think about all that could be and could have been if these three religions didn't exist. No WWII, No Current Wars, No Crusades. No clinic fire bombings. Equality for all men and women. No one to halt scientific exploration of growth because it threatens someone's religion. Sounds like a eutopia to me. How many wars have the LGBT community kick-started?

Might as well let people marry animals if this were to pass. Where would it end?

Why do people automatically assume Gay marriage will lead to bestiality? People thought the same thing when whites wanted to marry blacks years ago. I don't see the connection. Besides, people already marry animals. Happens all the time. Some lady married a roller coaster. I don't see the religious nuts contesting those unions.

Look. Marriage isn't a religious issue, it's a contract between families. How exactly does two people getting married affect your life?

reply to post by TruckDriver69


No AIDS was started by the governments (not just US) to depopulate the world. The easiest place would be poorer third world countries and some of the poorer countries in Africa. No homosexuals did not start AIDS.

Originally posted by Furbs
Luckily for anyone interested in being in a same sex marriage, you are still entitled to all of the rights and privileges of that union in any state if you are given a legal marriage certificate in a state that allows same sex marriages.

The only recourse a state has is to not allow them to be issued in their state.

any chance you have a link for the above ??
from my understanding, unions entered elsewhere will Not be honored in States who deem them invalid.
in other words, you can travel/visit there, just don't die there. (as is said 'round here)

reply to post by nenothtu

So the voters are to be blamed for getting off their asses and voting their conscience, but the non-voters are blameless for sitting on their asses and failing to support THEIR beliefs?

You get what you work for.

while this is true, the work may be just beginning. ever think of that ??
consider this ... it's an ELECTION cycle ... need we really say more ?

what IF ... it was the 'goal' all along to have the State Supreme Court decide the issue ?
what better way than to permit passage of such atrociously oppressive and irrelevant amendment ?
talk about a fast track to the main desk.

i really don't expect this to remain standing for long.
especially now that ppl are whining, more ppl are listening, learning and taking action rather simply doing what they're told.

i really wish ppl would stop referencing "separation of Church and State" as though it's mentioned in the Constitution. that 'separation' is a figment of the imagination.
the Constitution restricts Congress and subsequently, the States.
there is no such separation specified or implied other than freedom for all religions.

glad to read that you got to vote and against it at that
am curious what "legal" reasons/issues led you to such a vote, care to share?

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


I've read every post you've written, as well as all of the others. for you and your arguments.

You bring up valid points, valid questions and present your side well. Unfortunately, I am not seeing a discussion here so much as I am people ignoring your points, avoiding your questions (likely because they have no answer) and offering hate filled, religious filled rhetoric over and over again.

It seems useless to even keep the conversation going, as it seems some people are too close minded to view any side but their own. I appreciate and admire your willingness to try, however.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

reply to post by nenothtu

Because gays have been demanding that everyone else recognize their relationships as legitimate. The rest said "no".

AGAIN... if you don't ask permission, they can't say no.

Also - if you demand their opinion, make sure you're ready to accept it. You'll never, EVER, dictate it.

wow, really ?? which totalitarian island are you on ??
"the rest said NO" ... how does that even matter where everyone is equal ??

who in their right mind asks permission of their servants [government] to do a damn thing ??
my servants don't have the authority to tell me NO.
and, last i checked, no one asked for an opinion, they are/should be demanding equality.
i seriously doubt anyone desires dictating an opinion rather demanding legal equality as individuals.
they are citizens who have chosen their "pursuit of happiness" ... whether or not anyone else agrees.
if they are not harming me/you, my/your opinion has no relevance.
Equality, however, is eternally relevant.

reply to post by jacktorrance


This was always going to be a long road. Call me naive, but I still believe in that America that our forefathers fought and died for. I feel as if I'd be doing them a disservice if I allowed hate, bigotry, and religious fascism to envelope this country. At the end of the day I may not change a damn thing, but I'll go to my grave trying.
Thanks for your reply, jacktorrance.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Honestly, it's my humble opinion that you are the kind of person that makes this country great.

What's kind of amusing to me is that, despite the fact that several of the ones you are arguing with now probably wouldn't agree, you are likely closer to the type of person our forefathers were, because of your willingness to fight for what you believe in; the rights of everyone.

Keep up the good fight. No discouragement here.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

The part you are writing about details a different scenario. It says that if a women is engaged and raped then the rapist is killed. This is mainly because at the time women were property. Raping a person's fiancee was pretty much a slight on his honor and property damage.

The part I quoted refers to a woman that is a virgin and not engaged to wed. If a man "seizes" her and then "lays with her" the person is ordered to pay for property damage. The damsel is considered damaged and no other man is going to want her. So the attacker pays for the lost dowry and takes her as a wife. It is not only about rape it is about treating women as a form of chattel.

reply to post by jacktorrance


Again, thank you, but I am just one man. Change takes many. Luckily logic seems to be growing as a trend. Perhaps someday the number of logical citizens will outnumber those of closed minds. For now... sleep.

It is midnight here, so I'm off to get forty winks before my 4-year old (the human rooster) wakes me up to go swimming at the crack of dawn. Goodnight.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul


"Man-boy love" and "bestiality" are all okay in the bible, so why not?
What's sick is people who think they are preaching "God's love" by condemning, demonizing, hating, incriminating, and on and on. Where does it stop? Mental Illness? What is organized religion?

Nowhere in the Bible are either of those things allowed or condoned. In fact, the penalty for bestiality is death.
Same for homosexuality. There is no relief if the other person is a kid. It is still a capital offense.

I have read threads on other forums about this today and I am sickened by the lack of morals in the world today. It is disgusting that so many people have been brainwashed by the gay perverts. That long road that started with "Uncle Arthur" on Bewitched has led us to this bizarre situation where the dumbest idea in the world is supported by a huge group of people. The first I ever heard of this stupid idea was in an Eminem song where the rapper was trying to be silly and controversial. To think it has garnered so much support when real civil rights issues lay not only unresolved, but unacknowledged.

Do you people not remember Sodom? How about Pompei? Thailand? New Orleans? Haiti? Japan?!? Places that are rife with sexual immorality get wiped out on a regular basis even today. Are you going to ignore history and in the name of some retarded idea of rights go and get us all killed? God is more than some fairy tale man in the clouds. He is in control and He punishes those who get too far out of line. Allowing this sort of depravity is a sure certain method of committing mass suicide. And you fools are bringing it down on all our heads. Thanks a lot. Jerks.

Originally posted by Ookie...the penalty for bestiality is death.
Same for homosexuality.

I'm just waiting for a christian to try and kill me like their book says then

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Furbs
Luckily for anyone interested in being in a same sex marriage, you are still entitled to all of the rights and privileges of that union in any state if you are given a legal marriage certificate in a state that allows same sex marriages.

The only recourse a state has is to not allow them to be issued in their state.

any chance you have a link for the above ??
from my understanding, unions entered elsewhere will Not be honored in States who deem them invalid.
in other words, you can travel/visit there, just don't die there. (as is said 'round here)

Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit Clause.

This bit of the Constitution is the reason you do not need to be legally married in every state you visit, and why you do not need to have 50 different drivers licenses. The notion has already been held up in similar cases, thoough Same Sex Marriage has not been taken to the Supreme Court. Marriage between first cousins is not allowed in all 50 States, but they are -legal- in all 50 States.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2



I think its stupid that Christians can't retain the biblical meaning of marriage and gays and lesbians can't have their "civil unions".

Both will allow the same the same benefits under the law!

Unfortunately, this specific ruling makes 'civil unions' illegal. Because Christians want their religious definition of marriage enforced by the State.

reply to post by Furbs

Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit Clause.

This bit of the Constitution is the reason you do not need to be legally married in every state you visit, and why you do not need to have 50 different drivers licenses. The notion has already been held up in similar cases, thoough Same Sex Marriage has not been taken to the Supreme Court. Marriage between first cousins is not allowed in all 50 States, but they are -legal- in all 50 States.

while you may be right, i tend to think Section 2 is more applicable.
it has been my understanding that Section 1 references access to records and the like or we wouldn't have differing laws state to state.

as for comparing a driver license, i think that's a stretch because originally, you are "required" to have a license only when operating commercially upon the roads but that's another topic for another thread.
link to satisfy curiosity ... www.lawfulpath.com...

otherwise, i only made the comment because of the common conversations i've both overheard and participated. although possibly wrong, it is the general concensus that "damage" (serious injury/death) occurring in locations where the "union" isn't recognized could be quite aggravating to potentially fatal.
be that as it may, it shouldn't be if it is.